Sequels are something we gamers (and moviegoers) see each year; why wouldn't a company try and make another of something that was really successful? Of course, game sequels are a bit more acceptable, seeing as how developers want to reuse the assets and game engines they develop, but the number of sequels is still astronomical each year, especially when compared to the original IP's of that year.
A sequel tends to be a more well-developed game (at least most of the time) since the developers understand the mechanics of what they have created better the second time around and can add things they missed out on. Hell, sometimes the sequel is what really kicks off a franchise, some examples being Uncharted and Assassin's Creed. Both second games in those series were phenomenally better than the first and pulled in a much larger crowd the second time around.
What's the point of all this, you ask? I remember Assassin's Creed II being the first Assassin's Creed game I really played. I mean, I did play a few missions of the first game but found it unbearably repetitive, like most people. When the second one came out, and I saw all the coverage of it, I knew that it was something I had to play. That shouldn't have been a problem but I encountered one that is very common with game sequels; I didn't have any idea what had happened in the first game.
What's a person to do if they want to play the second or third game in a series? Do they put the new game on hold and go back to play the first two? Doing so will fill them in on the story but if they are worse games, they could discourage the person from playing the better new one. It's also possible that they get tired of the style of gameplay, if it is very similar. Or do they simply go and read a wiki or forum summary of the earlier game's plot? Doing this will give the person the backstory but it most likely won't sink in as well as it would have from actually playing the game. I know that I personally can't care about or really remember the intricate details of a story from a game I haven't actually played. Still, if this is the only option, a dedicated player will do what they have to to understand the story.
This is an interesting conundrum, one that, thankfully, doesn't come up too often. Some solutions that have existed in the past are things like a "previously on" cutscene before they game that summarizes the events of the last game. This is a bit more meaningful to the player as it lets them see it in a venue closer to the original means. If the story is extremely important to the developer, they could even include a full series of cutscenes covering the entire details of the story (Yakuza 3 did this; not just for this purpose but because previous entries never made it over here). These are really the best things that a developer can do if the story from previous games is important.
Other franchises simply have self-contained stories that don't need all the background info to make sense. Sure, people who played the first Uncharted will have a bit more insight into Nathan Drake but it really isn't necessary to enjoy Uncharted 2. The Final Fantasy series or the Persona series are more great examples of this; both series have numbered entries but each entry is its own story - the world and characters are always set up at the beginning. This techniques ensures that the developer doesn't need to worry about new players of the series.
In the end, the responsibility falls to the player. If the story truly matters to them, they have no better option than going back to play the earlier games. The dedicated ones will be able to accept the gameplay or UI quirks and absorb the information they needed. As time goes on, this will only become more of a concern. Games are evolving as a storytelling device and developers are beginning to feel more comfortable telling their stories over an arc, not just as quickly as they can.
No comments:
Post a Comment